Gwynne Dyer: Dab Those Bali Tears

Tue, 2007-12-18 16:17James Glave
James Glave's picture

Gwynne Dyer: Dab Those Bali Tears

Bumming on Bali? Well wipe your nose, urges Gwynne Dyer.

As we now all know, the just-wrapped United Nations Climate Change Conference known as COP-13 did not set the hard emissions-reductions targets that humankind so desperately needs.

But there was a silver lining in the South Pacific, argues Dyer, who is perhaps best known for his 1980s TV miniseries War. His new column pulls back the scope, and places COP-13's non-outcome in the wider context of human evolution.

“Do not be downhearted,” the one-time Oscar nominee says. Though millions may now die who might otherwise have lived, Dyer notes, the talks at least revealed “the human race trying to grow up and take responsibility for its common future.”

That may be little consolation for those among us who know far too much about where this roadmap is really leading us, but the leather-jacketed sage also springboards off Al Gore's regime-change remarks with a tidbit of hopeful strategy:

“The next big conference, scheduled for Poland next December, will probably be allowed to slip by a couple of months so that the new U.S. administration is in office.”

In other words, sure, it really sucks to deny and delay for another year, but just leave the space blank, and let's all hold the phone until the superpower at the table has sworn in a new, presumably more sensible, boss.

The question is: Can the U.N. push back Poland a few weeks without the cooperation of a lame-duck administration hell-bent on ruining it for everyone?

Comments

Dyer should stick to his specialty. There's no squeezing lemonade out of rocks.

Dyer should stick to somthing. Science is sure not his strong suite.
As the world cools even more in the coming year (as it has done consistantly for the past 7) interest in dumb mythology like AGW will slowly dwindly to the joke it really is.
Such a sad time to be human and watch so many get sucked in so completely by such weak pseudo science.
shameful...

So Gary, you are making a prediction of consistent cooling. Would you like to place a wager on that?

After a couple of days away, I notice Gary hasn't responded to my challenge that he back up his proclaimed beliefs. Confidence-inspiring (Paul S, below), indeed. And what a surprise: Rob challenged Carl on science and then when Carl replied, Rob disappeared. Again. Stop wasting everyone's time Rob.

Gary, you can't even get you facts right. 2005 was the warmest year not 1998. I guess global warming is finished because we've had 2 years of cooling. What a moron.

Data available at:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html
and more specifically at
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_and_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

Just a Question. Are those links to the adjusted data, the fudged data, the readjusted data or just to the propoganda data?

Just wondering, its so hard to keep up with all the fudging of temperature data these days.

Just thought you might find this amusing:
Lifted from another blog:

This is priceless: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html

From the GISS website itself an admission that Surface Air Temperature measurements are mostly guesswork and essentially useless. I quote:

"Q. What SAT do the local media report ?
A. The media report the reading of 1 particular thermometer of a nearby weather station. This temperature may be very different from the true SAT even at that location and has certainly nothing to do with the true regional SAT. To measure the true regional SAT, we would have to use many 50 ft stacks of thermometers distributed evenly over the whole region, an obvious practical impossibility.

Q. If the reported SATs are not the true SATs, why are they still useful ?
A. The reported temperature is truly meaningful only to a person who happens to visit the weather station at the precise moment when the reported temperature is measured, in other words, to nobody."

Note the name of the responsible individual at the bottom of the webpage, none other than Dr. James Hansen.

You cut off Hansen's second answer

Q. If the reported SATs are not the true SATs, why are they still useful ?
A. The reported temperature is truly meaningful only to a person who happens to visit the weather station at the precise moment when the reported temperature is measured, in other words, to nobody. However, in addition to the SAT the reports usually also mention whether the current temperature is unusually high or unusually low, how much it differs from the normal temperature, and that information (the anomaly) is meaningful for the whole region. Also, if we hear a temperature (say 70F), we instinctively translate it into hot or cold, but our translation key depends on the season and region, the same temperature may be 'hot' in winter and 'cold' in July, since by 'hot' we always mean 'hotter than normal', i.e. we all translate absolute temperatures automatically into anomalies whether we are aware of it or not.

Very weird article and not confidence inspiring in the least.

I guess your new to this whole global warming thing, eh.

If you had taken the time to actually look into what the issue is really about, instead of simply repeating what some AGW denier told you at a recent dinner party, you might have actually had a chance of sounding somewhat intelligent. Unfortunately for you, everything you write from now on will simply be dismissed as the rantings of a lunatic.

Even the "professional" AGW deniers know better.

Who knows, maybe you also believe that the sun revolves around the Earth which, as every "sane" person knows is the centre of the known universe.

cyb3r_ph4ntom

"Who knows, maybe you also believe that the sun revolves around the Earth which, as every "sane" person knows is the centre of the known universe."

Don't forget that at one time that was the "scientific consensus"(tm). In fact, anyone professing otherwise would be put on the Church's "Denier Database", and subjected to The Inquisition, until they either recanted, or expired from their injuries.

Goes to show -- everything old is new again. And you people call yourselves "progressives"!

Don’t be play like you are a moron, modern science, as a function of the scientific method didn’t even exist until the last 200 years at most. You can’t even have a scientific consensus without any science, so the notion that the earth is flat or that the earth was the centre of the universe was one time the scientific consensus is garbage, there was no scientific evidence for those things or scientists to support them.

There are a wide variety of scientific consensus issues like, HIV causes aids, or CFC cause degradation of ozone, or tobacco smoking increases risk of cancer greatly, etc yet some loons argue against all of these for profit perhaps, though one would hope for better scientific understanding but this is hardly the case when they are being paid by corporate interests. My point is that you will always find the loons to argue against the consensus no matter what it is for personal gain. Fred Singer makes a living on "challenging consensus" it, be it tobacco causing cancer, second hand smoke causing cancer, CFC causing holes in the ozone layer he’s been doing it for a better part of 30 years. If he challenges something I tend to think the opposite was true just on his history of being a denier for hire alone.

But thankfully I have a huge body of scientific evidence, and experiments to rely on. Really though I wonder what you know about science at all since you've said loony things like its difficult to measure atmospheric CO2 content (when ive done it before in less than 30 seconds) and its hard to determine that most of its increase in the atmosphere is human derived (when even a first year physics student knows what a mass spec is). Very amusing for me really,did you ever even take a scientific course in school?

"Don’t be play like you are a moron, modern science"

Sorry I don't speak caveman, but I'll take a wild guess that you are, in your own inept way, attempting to call me a moron? That's hilarious.

"But thankfully I have a huge body of scientific evidence, and experiments to rely on."

Do you? Remind us again which experiments have proven that human activity has significantly affected the climate? Tell us what experiments have shown humans posess the abiltiy to change the environment back, at will. I expect you'll obfuscate and avoid the question as you previously have. The real "inconvenient truth" is that no such experiments exist, nor any convincing proof.

"Really though I wonder what you know about science at all since you've said loony things like its difficult to measure atmospheric CO2 content"

I'm fairly certain I've never stated any such thing. Try again.

"and its hard to determine that most of its increase in the atmosphere is human derived."

Nope. Sorry, never said that, either. Now you're just making stuff up.

"when even a first year physics student knows what a mass spec is"

Actually, as it happens, I know exactly what a mass spectrometer is. I'd even wager I know more about them than you do -- either that, or I've somehow managed to swindle my employer out of a paycheque on that basis for quite some time. You've exposed my scam!

Or are you referring to some revolutionary new type of mass spectrometer which can distinguish between regular old CO2, and CO2 produced by humans?

"Very amusing for me really,did you ever even take a scientific course in school?"

Ooooh! Ouch! Another one of your crushing zingers, Carl! How much more can my self-esteem take?!

But really, that you parade yourself as any sort of "scientist", while spewing such tendencious crap is truly pathetic. It does not speak highly for the current state of academia.

Please stop picking on Carl, he received his Masters degree in Botany at the University of Manitoba in 2001 and is still looking for a job.

Good luck to his current/future employer, Carl must be one of the special thousands of climatologists making a mockery of science.

forgot to update my profile, I have one with the federal government right now

So that's what you call being on the dole nowadays?

I assure the Canadian tax payer they get good research work out of me, least my bosses think so.

Stuiver, M., Burk, R. L. and Quay, P. D. 1984. 13C/12C ratios and the transfer of biospheric carbon to the atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 1731–1748.

Francey, R.J., Allison, C.E., Etheridge, D.M., Trudinger, C.M., Enting, I.G., Leuenberger, M., Langenfelds, R.L., Michel, E., Steele, L.P., 1999. A 1000-year high precision record of d13Cin atmospheric CO2. Tellus 51B, 170–193.

Quay, P.D., B. Tilbrook, C.S. Wong. Oceanic uptake of fossil fuel CO2: carbon-13 evidence. Science 256 (1992), 74-79

3 papers which outline how the isotope difference in carbon reveals its source. Be it fossil or active biological. Since I am not being paid to give any tuitoring you'll have to figure out how a mass spec is involved in this. Do note the last paper, even the title makes it painfully clear, evidence, fossil fuel CO2, carbon 13...that should be enough on its own. Seeing how you never once quoted a paper it might pose some problem for you to look them up but either way...but its good to see you are again saying the same thing, as I mentioned above.

On current page 26 Thread title, Clumsy Media Bias Dwindling but US Still Behind the UK

You stated the following......

Carl, first you arrogantly proclaimed:

"you can easily run experiments and show within 95% confidence that
1) Greenhouse gas concentration has increased in the atmosphere,
2) that humans are largely to blame"

So where are these "easily run experiments" you were just boasting about? Or have you finally accepted the fact that such experiments simply don't exist?

So my reply to that yet again is that

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, its easy to measure with an IRGA, actually all greenhouse gas concentrations are easy to measure with various devices. And that humans are to blame for their increase is also easy to measure especially in the case of carbon as I have pointed out above with various isotope ratio depending on the source of the carbon. So..is that good enough?

Rob: This is off topic but really good:
a Must see. enjoy
The video is drawing great interest, and is already one of the most-viewed and most-rated videos, certainly amongst the serious science offerings on YouTube.

Watching it, it's hard to conclude that Carter is a shill for the oil industry, or a denialist zealot - rather, he presents interesting material in a balanced way.

Try it. Part 1 is at:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

[x]
climate change, IPCC

Human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems.” IPCC WGII AR5

Every five years or so thousands of scientists from around the world release a major report on the...

read more